DOCSLIB.ORG

Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report Final LMS/S10797 Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report Final June 2014 This page intentionally left blank LMS/S10797 Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report Final June 2014 This page intentionally left blank Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................v 1.0 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................1 2.0 Uranium Mine Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................3 2.1 Major Regulations Affecting Reclamation/Remediation of Uranium Mines ..............6 2.1.1 Regulation of Uranium-Bearing Materials .....................................................6 2.1.2 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) ...........................6 2.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .....................................................8 2.1.4 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act................................................9 2.1.5 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ....................................................................................................9 2.1.6 Clean Water Act ............................................................................................11 2.1.7 Other TENORM Regulations/Standards .......................................................12 2.1.8 Other Nations’ Regulation of Legacy Uranium Mines .................................13 2.2 EPA Reports on Uranium Mine Waste .....................................................................13 2.2.1 1983 Report to Congress ...............................................................................13 2.2.2 1985 Report to Congress ...............................................................................15 2.2.3 2000 Report to Congress on TENORM ........................................................15 2.2.4 2006/2007 TENORM Reports ......................................................................17 2.3 Remediation Standards ..............................................................................................19 3.0 Status of Other Agencies’ Prioritization/Reclamation .........................................................21 3.1 General Abandoned Hardrock Mine Overview .........................................................22 3.2 General Prioritization Discussion ..............................................................................27 3.3 Agency/State Summaries ...........................................................................................29 3.3.1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management ...............................................................29 3.3.2 DOE Lease Tracts .........................................................................................32 3.3.3 U.S. Forest Service .......................................................................................32 3.3.4 Navajo Nation ...............................................................................................33 3.3.5 National Park Service ...................................................................................35 3.3.6 States .............................................................................................................36 3.3.7 Multi-Party Efforts ........................................................................................40 4.0 Prioritization Approach ........................................................................................................41 4.1 Physical Hazards .......................................................................................................41 4.2 Proximity ...................................................................................................................42 4.3 Radiological Hazards .................................................................................................44 4.4 Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................47 5.0 References ............................................................................................................................57 Figures Figure 1. Uranium Domestic Concentrate Production, 1949–2011 ................................................ 7 Figure 2. Watersheds for the Western United States by Number of Mines .................................. 49 Figure 3. Watersheds for the Western United States by Tons of Ore Produced ........................... 50 Figure 4. Average Annual Precipitation of the Western United States ........................................ 54 U.S. Department of Energy Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report June 2014 Final Doc. No. S10797 Page i Tables Table 1. Laws and Regulations Relevant to Abandoned Uranium Mine Cleanup ..................... 4 Table 2. EPA Reports on Uranium Mine Waste ......................................................................... 5 Table 3. Lifetime Cancer Risks Corresponding to Selected Radiation Exposures and EPA Guidances and Regulations for Controlling Exposure of the Public .................. 16 Table 4. Land Ownership of Mines in the LM Mine Database ................................................ 22 Table 5. States with the Most Mines in the LM Mine Database ............................................... 22 Table 6. General Reports on Abandoned Hardrock Mines ....................................................... 23 Table 7. State and Federal Funds Spent During FY 1997 for Cleanup of Hardrock AMLs ..... 24 Table 8. Expenditures to Clean Up Abandoned Hardrock Mines ............................................. 25 Table 9. GAO (2009) Summary of Hardrock AMLs for Selected Western States ................... 26 Table 10. Prioritization Methodologies ...................................................................................... 27 Table 11. Summary of Hazards from BLM State Hardrock AML Work Plans for FY 2007–2013 ............................................................................................................ 31 Table 12. Physical Hazards ......................................................................................................... 42 Table 13. Proximity Ranking Systems ........................................................................................ 43 Table 14. Number of Mines within Distance Intervals from Roads and Schools ....................... 43 Table 15. Number of Mines within Combined Population and Distance Intervals .................... 43 Table 16. Comparison of Land Ownership and Size of Uranium Mines .................................... 45 Table 17. Radiological Hazard Comparison ............................................................................... 45 Table 18. Comparison of Land Ownership and Status of Mines ................................................ 46 Table 19. Comparison of Status and Size of Mines .................................................................... 46 Table 20. Status/Risk/Land Use Summary ................................................................................. 47 Table 21. Watersheds with Greatest Numbers of Uranium Mines ............................................. 51 Table 22. Watersheds with Most Ore Produced ......................................................................... 52 Appendixes Appendix A Definitions Appendix B Cleanup Levels for Uranium Mine Sites Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report U.S. Department of Energy Doc. No. S10797 Final June 2014 Page ii Abbreviations AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission AML abandoned mine land AMRP Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management Bq/g becquerels per gram Bq/m3 becquerels per cubic meter CAA Clean Air Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System cm centimeters CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Inc. CWA Clean Water Act DOE U.S. Department of Energy DRMS Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY fiscal year GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office (formerly called the General Accounting Office) GIS geographic information system GMD Grants Mining District LM Office of Legacy Management µg/L micrograms per liter µR/h microroentgens per hour m meters mg/L milligrams per liter mrem/yr millirems per year mSv/yr millisieverts per year NAMLRP Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program NAS National Academy of Sciences NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMAML New Mexico Abandoned Mine Land (program) U.S. Department of Energy Defense-Related Uranium Mines Prioritization Topic Report June 2014 Final Doc. No. S10797 Page iii NMED New Mexico Environment Department NORM naturally occurring radioactive material NPL National Priorities List NPS U.S. National Park Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation, and Enforcement pCi/g picocuries per gram pCi/L picocuries per liter PRP potentially responsible party RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act TENORM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mining in Australia History, Progress and Current Practice
    A policy paper commissioned MAY 2017 by the Minerals Council of Australia Environmental impacts of uranium mining in Australia History, progress and current practice Ben Heard POLICY PAPER Environmental impacts of uranium mining in Australia History, progress and current practice Ben Heard is a doctoral researcher at the University of Adelaide, focusing on clean energy systems and the potential role of nuclear technologies. He holds a Masters in Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Management from Monash University and was an environmental sustainability consultant from 2005-2016. He has taught several units of the Masters of Sustainability at the University of Adelaide and is an honourary member of the Leaders Institute of South Australia. His most recent research paper Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems was published in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. The Minerals Council of Australia is the peak national body representing Australia’s exploration, mining and minerals processing industry, nationally and internationally, in its contribution to sustainable economic, and social development. This publication is part of the overall program of the MCA, as endorsed by its Board of Directors, but does not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Board. Minerals Council of Australia Level 3, 44 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603 (PO Box 4497, Kingston ACT Australia 2604) P. + 61 2 6233 0600 | F. + 61 2 6233 0699 www.minerals.org.au | [email protected] Copyright © 2017 Minerals Council of Australia. All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher and copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power
    FEBRUARY 28, 2013 | No. 757 NUCLEAR POWER: LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD (NM757.4292) Last year marked the 20th anniversary of the fi rst edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR). For two decades the reports have punctu- red the lies of the nuclear industry. Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt wrote the 2012 edition and both contributed to the 1992 edition − congratulations Mycle and NUCLEAR POWER: LOOKING Antony! BACK, LOOKING FORWARD 1 FUKUSHIMA PROPAGANDA 4 The predictions made in WNISR-1992 stack up well. After a 20-year period of signi- fi cant growth, the report correctly predicted that nuclear expansion would "slow to a URANIUM MINING ISSUES: trickle". From 1992 to 2012, worldwide nuclear power capacity increased from 326 2012 REVIEW 8 gigawatts (GW) to 374 GW − a 15% increase in 20 years. IN BRIEF 18 The nuclear industry is fi nally catching up with Mycle and Antony. The International Atomic Energy Agency's 'low' estimates have become a more reliable guide over the years, and the Agency's current 'low' estimate of 456 GW capacity in 2030 suggests very slow annual growth of around 1.5% (IAEA, 2012). Nuclear power's proportional contribution to world electricity production will certainly decline. Nuclear's contribution peaked at 17% in 1993, fell to 12.3% in 2011, and the IAEA estimates just 4.7−6.2% in 2030 (IAEA, 2012, p.17). By 2030, a majority of the world's reactors will be nearing the end of their operating lives and the nuclear industry will need to run just to stand still.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides from the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives
    Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives By Edward Landa GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 814 A critical review of the literature dealing with uranium mill tailings, with emphasis on the geologic and geochemical processes affecting the long-term containment of radionuclides 1980 United States Department of the Interior CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary Geological Survey H. William Menard, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 79-600148 Free on application to Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey 1200 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 Acknowledginents ---------_----------------------------------------------- 2 Quantity and location of the tailings --------------------------------------­ 2 Radioactivity in tailings --------------------------------------------------­ 4 Sources of potential human radiation exposure from uranium mill tailings ------ 6 Radon emanation ----------------------------------------------------- 6 VVind transport ------------------------------------------------------- 6 Surface water transport and leaching ----------------------------------- 7 External gamma radiation -------------------------------------------­ 8 Contamination of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation ---------------------- 8 Seepage ----------------------------------------------------~--------
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    THE COLLECTION > From the uranium mine> toI wNTasRtOeD dUisCpToIsOaN l 1 > The atom 2 > Radioactivity 3 > Radiation and man 4 > Energy 5 > Nuclear energy: fusion and fission 6 > How a nuclear reactor works 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle FROM RESEARCH 8 > Microelectronics 9 > The laser: a concentrate of light TO INDUSTRY 10 > Medical imaging 11 > Nuclear astrophysics 12 > Hydrogen 7 >>TThhee nnuucclleeaarr ffuueell ccyyccllee UPSTREAM THE REACTOR: PREPARING THE FUEL IN THE REACTOR: FUEL CONSUMPTION DOWNSTREAM THE REACTOR: REPROCESSING NUCLEAR WASTE NUCLEAR WASTE © Commissariat à l’’Énergie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, 2005 Communication Division Bâtiment Siège - 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex www.cea.fr ISSN 1637-5408. From the uranium mine to waste disposal 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle From the uranium mine to waste disposal 7 > The nuclear fuel cycle 2 > CONTENTS > INTRODUCTION 3 Uranium ore is extracted from open-pit mines – such as the McClear mines in Canada seen here – or underground workings. a m e g o C © “The nuclear fuel cycle includes an erray UPSTREAM THE REACTOR: of industrial operations, from uranium PREPARING THE FUEL 4 e mining to the disposal of radioactive l Extracting uranium from the ore 5 waste.” c Concentrating and refining uranium 6 y Enriching uranium 6 c Enrichment methods 8 l introduction uel is a material that can be burnt to pro - IN THE REACTOR: FUEL CONSUMPTION 9 Fvide heat. The most familiar fuels are wood, e Preparing fuel assemblies 10 coal, natural gas and oil. By analogy, the ura - e g a nium used in nuclear power plants is called Per unit or mass (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program
    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program By Robert Alvarez Formed over 6 billion years ago, uranium, a dense, silvery-white metal, was created “during the fiery lifetimes and explosive deaths in stars in the heavens around us,” stated Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias.1 With a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years, uranium-238 is the most dominant of several unstable uranium isotopes in nature and has enabled scientists to understand how our planet was created and formed. For at least the last 2 billion years, uranium shifted from deep in the earth to the rocky shell-like mantle, and then was driven by volcanic processes further up to oceans and to the continental crusts. The Colorado Plateau at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where some of the nation’s largest uranium deposits exist, began to be formed some 300 million years ago, followed later by melting glaciers, and erosion which left behind exposed layers of sand, silt and mud. One of these was a canary-yellow sediment that would figure prominently in the nuclear age. From 1942 to 1971, the United States nuclear weapons program purchased about 250,000 metric tons of uranium concentrated from more than 100 million tons of ore.2 Although more than half came from other nations, the uranium industry heavily depended on Indian miners in the Colorado Plateau. Until recently,3 their importance remained overlooked by historians of the atomic age. There is little doubt their efforts were essential for the United States to amass one of the most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining in Virginia
    Nontechnical Summary Uranium Mining in Virginia In recent years, there has been renewed interest in mining uranium in the Common- wealth of Virginia. However, before any mining can begin, Virginia’s General Assembly would have to rescind a statewide moratorium on uranium mining that has been in effect since 1982. The National Research Council was commissioned to provide an independent review of the scientific, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, processing, and reclamation in Virginia to help inform the public discussion about uranium mining and to assist Virginia’s lawmakers in their deliberations. eneath Virginia’s convene an independent rolling hills, there committee of experts to Bare occurrences of write a report that described uranium—a naturally occur- the scientific, environmental, ring radioactive element that human health and safety, and can be used to make fuel for regulatory aspects of mining nuclear power plants. In the and processing Virginia’s 1970s and early 1980s, work to uranium resources. Addi- explore these resources led to tional letters supporting this the discovery of a request were received from large uranium deposit at Coles U.S. Senators Mark Warner Hill, which is located in and Jim Webb and from Pittsylvania County in southern Governor Kaine. The Virginia. However, in 1982 the National Research Council Commonwealth of Virginia study was funded under a enacted a moratorium on contract with the Virginia uranium mining, and interest in Center for Coal and Energy further exploring the Coles Hill Research at Virginia deposit waned. Polytechnic Institute and In 2007, two families living in the vicinity of State University (Virginia Tech).
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Uranium Development on Or Near Indian Reservations and Health Implications Rekindling Public Awareness
    Geosciences 2015, 5, 15-29; doi:10.3390/geosciences5010015 OPEN ACCESS geosciences ISSN 2076-3263 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences Review The Legacy of Uranium Development on or Near Indian Reservations and Health Implications Rekindling Public Awareness Anita Moore-Nall Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173480, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +1-406-587-9769 Academic Editors: Jose A. Centeno, Robert B. Finkelman and Olle Selinus Received: 1 January 2015 / Accepted: 26 January 2015 / Published: 3 February 2015 Abstract: Uranium occurrence and development has left a legacy of long-lived health effects for many Native Americans and Alaska Natives in the United States. Some Native American communities have been impacted by processing and development while others are living with naturally occurring sources of uranium. The uranium production peak spanned from approximately 1948 to the 1980s. Thousands of mines, mainly on the Colorado Plateau, were developed in the western U.S. during the uranium boom. Many of these mines were abandoned and have not been reclaimed. Native Americans in the Colorado Plateau area including the Navajo, Southern Ute, Ute Mountain, Hopi, Zuni, Laguna, Acoma, and several other Pueblo nations, with their intimate knowledge of the land, often led miners to uranium resources during this exploration boom. As a result of the mining activity many Indian Nations residing near areas of mining or milling have had and continue to have their health compromised. This short review aims to rekindle the public awareness of the plight of Native American communities living with the legacy of uranium procurement, including mining, milling, down winders, nuclear weapon development and long term nuclear waste storage.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Uranium Mining and Milling Using Commercial Observation Satellites
    Monitoring Uranium Mining and Milling using Commercial Observation Satellites Lalitha Sundaresan1, Chandrashekar Srinivasan1 and Bhupendra Jasani2 1. Visiting Professors, International Strategic and Security Studies Programme, National Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore, India 2. Department of War Studies, King’s College London, London, UK E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: As several states have signed the Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), they will need to declare their nuclear activities in considerable detail, including their operational and shut down uranium mines. This could significantly increase the burden on the resources of the IAEA in carrying out its safeguards procedures. The IAEA could use space-based high-resolution panchromatic, multi-spectral and hyper-spectral sensors to verify some aspects of uranium mining and milling. Such techniques could reduce the overall costs. The availability of such data cost free on the Google Earth web site and commercially from various imagery providers makes it possible for analysts to make assessments concerning the nuclear fuel cycle activities of various countries of interest. The mining of uranium and its conversion through a milling process into U3O8 (yellowcake) is the first step of a complex conversion cycle that determines how the mined material will be used. Our study discusses the possible use of satellite imagery for identifying and monitoring uranium mining and milling activities. In the study an attempt is made to answer the following questions: 1. Can we identify uranium mines using openly available satellite imagery? 2. Can we use various steps in uranium milling operations to identify such mills across the world? 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling
    Nuclear Development Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling A Joint NEA/IAEAReport NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY OECD, 1999. Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue AndrÂe-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING A JOINT REPORT BY THE OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: ± to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining ®nancial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; ± to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and ± to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining
    Nuclear Development 2014 Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Extended Summary NEA Nuclear Development Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Extended Summary © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7063 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN MODERN URANIUM MINING Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Introduction Producing uranium in a safe and environmentally responsible manner is not only important to the producers and consumers of the product, but also to society at large. Given expectations of growth in nuclear generating capacity and associated uranium demand in the coming decades – particularly in the developing world – enhancing awareness of leading practice in uranium mining is important. This extended summary of the report Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining provides a brief outline of the driving forces behind the significant evolution of uranium mining practices from the time that uranium was first mined for military purposes until today. Uranium mining remains controversial principally because of legacy environmental and health issues created during the early phase of the industry. Today, uranium mining is conducted under significantly different circumstances and is now the most regulated and one of the safest forms of mining in the world. The report compares historic uranium mining practices with leading practices in the modern era, and provides an overview of the considerable evolution of regulations and mining practices that have occurred in the last few decades. Case studies of past and current practices are included to highlight these developments and to contrast the outcomes of historic and modern practices. With over 430 reactors operational worldwide at the end of 2013, more than 70 under construction and many more under consideration, providing fuel for these long-lived facilities will be essential for the uninterrupted generation of significant amounts of baseload electricity for decades to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining and Milling of Uranium Ore: Indian Scenario
    XA0103130 MINING AND MILLING OF URANIUM ORE: INDIAN SCENARIO J.L. BHASIN Uranium Corporation of India Ltd, Jaduguda, Bihar, India Abstract The occurrence of uranium minerals in Singhbhum Thrust belt of Eastern India was known since 1937. In 1950, a team of geologists of the Atomic Minerals Division was assigned to closely examine this 160 km long belt. Since then, several occurrences of uranium have been found and a few of them have sufficient grade and tonnage for commercial exploitation. In 1967, the Government of India formed Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy, with the specific objective of mining and processing of uranium ore and produce uranium concentrates. At present the Corporation operates three underground uranium mines, one ore processing plant with expanded capacity, and two uranium recovery plants. Continuing investigations by the Atomic Mineral Division has discovered several new deposits and favourable areas. The most notable is the large Domiasiat deposit of the sandstone type found in the State of Meghalaya. This deposit is now being considered for commercial exploitation using the in-situ leaching technology. 1. INTRODUCTION Soon after independence, the search to locate indigenous sources of uranium began as a sequel to the decision of Government of India to harness atomic energy for industrial purposes. It assumed greater importance with the rapid industrial development and limited availability of resources of fossil fuel and hydroelectricity in the country. Soon, it became imperative to locate uranium deposits in the country to meet the requirement Indigenously. In the first decade of exploration, a number of areas showing anomalous concentration of uranium was identified all over the country specially in the states of Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Health and Psychosocial Impacts of Uranium Development in Eeyou Istchee
    Potential health and psychosocial impacts of uranium development in Eeyou Istchee Bureau des audiences publiques sur l’environnement and James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment Submitted by the regional Public Health Department of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay October 26, 2014. 1 SUMMARY This statement is presented by the Public Health Department of the Cree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay (CBHSSJB) in the context of the 3rd phase of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnment (BAPE) public hearings on Uranium. It is written to share the Public Health Department’s understanding of the impact of uranium mining on the population of Eeyou Istchee (EI) with regional authorities and provincial partners. The brief describes the Cree population’s health status and determinants, discusses issues faced by communities related to the presence of natural uranium, and presents new concerns on potential health and psychosocial impacts of uranium development in EI. The James Bay Cree population consists of 16,262 persons based in nine communities. The Cree face important public health challenges, such as high rates of diabetes, obesity, sexually transmitted infections and social problems, which are attributable in a large part to poor health determinants. On the positive side, few persons in EI are socially isolated and important aspects of traditional culture, like language and bush food consumption, have been retained. As well, blood levels of environmental contaminants are of little concern and zoonotic diseases are not causing significant problems. The natural presence of uranium in soil and bedrock has already been a public health issue in EI; uranium levels in the water distribution system of one community and above-normal radon concentrations in houses have been documented.
    [Show full text]